>Cc: Robert Joly; Alberto; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Configuring NAT Traversal in sipxconfig > > >On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 09:50 -0400, Martin Steinmann wrote: > >> >> I think I agree with both views, which are a) We need to >> address cases where the customer uses dynamic addresses and b) >> using STUN is not a very reliable way to discover the external >> address. >> >> However, it seems to me that in exactly those cases where the >> customer has a small network with only one gateway to the >> Internet using a dynamic address STUN would be quite reliable >> to discover this external IP address. STUN becomes more >> unreliable in larger networks with several gateways, but in >> these cases it is much more likely that the customer uses a >> fixed IP address assigned by the ITSP. > >The caveat with STUN discovery is that it won't always give you the >right answer unless the the STUN server is at the same IP address as the >thing you want to send to. > >So if your ITSP has STUN in their proxy, you're good - if not, you might >sometimes get the wrong answer by querying a STUN server somewhere else >(especially with respect to the ports). >
Ok, that makes sense. My vote would be then to let the admin take that decision and not second guess them. I think sipXbridge can already use STUN as an option. What about the NAT traversal feature in the proxy? --martin _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
